Alphakronik:So, they are biatching about a loss that is equal to the tax subsidies of one Fortune 500 company.

LOL

Apples/oranges.

I don't like subsidies either, but the companies that got them did so through legal means. Weaselly and slimy means, but perfectly legal. Hate the game, not the player.

And for what its worth, not even the most kucinichy interpretation of the definition of a subsidy gave any Fortune 500 company $11 billion in a year. Three got that much if you measured over three years. It's a good argument for eliminating the whole concept of taxes/tax subsidies for businesses altogether, but that's a different topic than the one here - which is IRS incompetence.

How fast would your business go under if you farked up one out of every four transactions?

Paul Baumer:Notably absent - commentary about properly filed EITC claims that are questioned by the IRS and conceded by the taxpayer because they get the shiate scared out of them when dealing with the IRS.

//former agent

That doesn't surprise me. Letters from the IRS can be scary shiat. I especially like the one I got saying I had failed to file my taxes for 2000 (I had) and that I owed $25,000 (my gross income for that year was ~$27k). I got it straightened out, but damn if that wasn't the scariest farking letter I've ever read.

As this chart indicates, the IRS takes its mandate to reduce EITC overclaims seriously.Given the IRS's limited resources, however, the large amount of effort the IRS devotesto relatively low-yield EITC audits means that the agency is probably collecting lessoverall revenue than a strategy of pursuing higher-yield audits would produce....Reports of improper EITC payments may create concern about fraud. As noted earlier,a refundable feature per se does not account for improper payments. Nor is there anyreason to believe that low income workers are particularly fraudulent.57 Instead, it isfrequently the case that the IRS denies proper claims because of lack ofdocumentation.58 ...[T]he National Taxpayer Advocate believes that the study overstates theoverclaim rate because it relied exclusively on the outcome of EITC audits. TASdata suggests that audit outcomes are frequently incorrect and that a significantnumber of entitled taxpayers are being denied the credit in error.67

And in other news, an Oregon dairy farmer got into trouble when his cattle protested that he milks them too much. The farmer's response: "My bad, so sad, I'll try not to do it again. By the way, you know I own your brown furry asses, right? Just want to make sure you know the score."

How do we know the money went to poor people? The IRS didn't bother to check.

Because it's really really easy for the IRS to check that rich people don't claim the credit. Most of the errors are almost certainly on the margins of the credit's limits. And, as mentioned before, this doesn't even check the number of people who should have gotten the credit, but didn't. My guess is that the two roughly cancel each other out, otherwise this would have been noticed sooner by simple bottom-line checks

EIC has always been ripe for fraud. Get a married couple with kids, split the kids between the parents as dependents, then each parent claims head of household. Most are smart enough to figure out the best way to do this. The IRS does not verify addresses or residences.

The past couple of years the IRS has put the burden of proof on the preparer i.e. more paperwork proving due dillegence, but that's not going to change anything. Until the IRS can match up social security number to residences the fraud will keep happening.

Red Shirt Blues:EIC has always been ripe for fraud. Get a married couple with kids, split the kids between the parents as dependents, then each parent claims head of household. Most are smart enough to figure out the best way to do this. The IRS does not verify addresses or residences.

The past couple of years the IRS has put the burden of proof on the preparer i.e. more paperwork proving due dillegence, but that's not going to change anything. Until the IRS can match up social security number to residences the fraud will keep happening.

I was called to jury duty. The accused was charge with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He was a bla man in his mid 20s about 5'5" maybe 130 Lbs. He had someone file his taxes for him. He earned about $12000 the previous year working part time. On his taxes he claimed 2 dependents even thou the children did not live with him nor did he pay child support. They were of course the children of 2 different women. He received a check from the IRS for over $8000. The idiot took the check to an any kind check cashing place who charged him 10% just to cash the check. He then went and bought an ounce rock of crack. The police testified that it was still one big rock when they found it. The accused had NO criminal record. The police time line was he bout the rock on Wednesday and went to a local club that night and the next. On Friday he went to a 'friend's' house and smoke some rock with him while his friend's baby momma and 3 children were there. He then went back to the same club only to return around midnight. At that time a fight broke out between the friend and the accused. The friend was 6'6" and over 230LBS. The friend also had a very long rap sheet with assault and strong arm robbery. So then we the jury get to listen to the 911 call made by the baby momma during the fight when the big friend beats the accused nearly to death. Police and ambulances arrive and take the accused to the hospital and during surgery prep they find the crack. The friend was accused and plead guilty to assault. He serve a month or 2 in county and was out and gone before the accused even went to trial. The case was air tight and we convicted him. I found out later he got 25 years because he had neatly an ounce. Considering his size and build I expect he was mad someone's biatch in the big house and will likely die of aids before his release.

All this because the government gave him more money than he had ever seen in his life and he had no clue how to handle it.

Increase accountability standards, cut staff, complain about failure to comply with accountability standards and respond with "Obama jackbooted thugs" to any proposal to hire more tax collection staff. Is that about right?

Paul Baumer:Notably absent - commentary about properly filed EITC claims that are questioned by the IRS and conceded by the taxpayer because they get the shiate scared out of them when dealing with the IRS.

//former agent

This part I understand. The rest sounds all account.IRS: Good MorningMe: How Much?The extent of my interview with them.

That's the farking truth. In fact, some a-hole filed a tax return using my wife's SSN, creating all kinds of headaches for us, which could have all been avoided if the IRS verified ANY of the information on the return. It's simply amazing...

RminusQ:pdee: He was a bla man in his mid 20s about 5'5" maybe 130 Lbs.

Cool story, Rick. By the way, EITC tops out at about $5,000, so you're fully of shiat.

EIC does, but that doesn't mean the refund can't be more. He'd also qualify for a Refundable Child Tax Credit for each, that's another $2,000 right there. Add whatever he had withheld, and it definiately could get that high. The baby mommas could send a claim to the IRS for those kids though and they'd be able to claim them and he'd owe the money back, but it's not like someone like that would ever have the money to pay it back.

Dancin_In_Anson:Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: So the takeaway here is that poor black people should stay poor or they'll just get uppity?

Maybe for you.

No, I'm pretty sure that was the underlying message since they made a point to mention their skin color and finished it by saying it was all because they'd gotten more money than they're used to. Their whole paragraph boils down to, "If you give black people more money, they'll use it to cause trouble." That may not have been their intention, but it's sure as hell what they said.

Dancin_In_Anson:Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: "If you give black people more money, they'll use it to cause trouble."

That's the way you read it. I'd feel the same if the criminals were the color of a babbon's ass.

A baboon's ass!?!?! You're CLEARLY a racist that hates Native Americans as much as you hate African Americans! What a crass reference to a racial slur used only by Old West biggots and a certain NFL franchise!